District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen, who represents the Bayview, said that Fresh & Easy did little to support its Third Street store, and was unresponsive to efforts to work with the community. “I am deeply disappointed that Fresh and Easy did not include the Bayview community in this process. As a city we have made consistent efforts to be a part of the discussion to ensure that the Bayview community was not harmed by the failures of Fresh & Easy to capitalize on the economic opportunities in San Francisco,” she said in a statement.

So, San Francisco County isn’t a hard place in which to do business? But, yes it is a hard place in which to do business! Here’s the task – go into the Bayview and operate a gro sto that makes money, but keep in mind that this goal has been attained by nobody else. And when things don’t work out, a low-level elected official will call out your alleged incompetence to tout le monde.

“Fresh & Easy may point to the low-performance of the existing Bayview store as the primary reason for why it was not included in the acquisition agreement. However, this statement does not take into account that Fresh & Easy made little effort to support the day to day operations of the store.”

Malia Cohen, business consultant?

She said city officials “made countless offers to meet with the general manager of the store to discuss neighborhood marketing campaigns in order to ensure it would remain successful.”

So if you’re running a business in the 415, a “neighborhood marketing campaign” will “ensure” success? Really?

Supervisor Cohen said that the decision would force many Bayview residents to buy their groceries in other neighborhoods.

Oh, back to planet Earth, yes, at least we agree on this. Yes, the F&E is the only genuine grocery store in the area. Of course, there’s a Walgreens at 5300 3rd Street just five blocks away and it’s sort of a substitute for a gro sto. Here’s the extensive chip section – it’s the Great Wall o’ Chips!

(And this is just one part of The Wall.)

But it’s not really a full-on grocery, I’ll agree.

Oh, but what’s this the next block over at 5201 3rd? It’s Aguila de Oro Produce. See? It’s smack dab in the middle of the Lower Third’s purported “food desert” and yet it’s more of a “food oasis,” as defined by the Feds, than any Walgreens in the world:

This store serves all comers. And in a way, it has an unlimited supply.

So Malia, instead of crittercizing grocery managers who were given an almost impossible task, why not promote those who are already succeeding without the help of SFGov? I mean, the first thing I’d think about if you asked me to operate a full-on grocery in the area is why have all the other efforts failed? And then I’d think about how long will it take for my political “friends” to turn on me?

Cohen has already begun conversations with local grocers about potentially acquiring the site if Yucaipa does not reconsider purchasing the Bayview location.

“I am committed to working with the community to determine the future of this important asset, continue our economic revitalization efforts* on the Third Street corridor and ensure that the Bayview community continues to have access to health and affordable food options,” she said.

Blah blah blah. What does all this mean? Who created this “asset?” You, Malia Cohen, or those you harsh out? And who on Earth will “ensure that the Bayview community continues to have access to healthand affordable food options?” Access to health? That’s a tall order, non?

*Efforts, mmm. Was the Third Street rail system an “effort?” I suppose. Is it a success? IDK. IMO, we’d be better of without it, even though the Feds kicked in a lot of money. Was Redevelopment all those years ago an “effort?” Yes. Was it a “success?” Oh no. We all agree about that, in retrospect. You live in a world of yes-men, you know, your officemates. You don’t want to lose the plot, Malia, in such an environment. You don’t want to lose touch with the Real World.

On November 15, 2011, the Transportation Authority held a hearing on the new MTA Audit and ignored the Audit’s 46-page “Appendix VI: Central Subway Project”. Several press articles reported that the Audit examined 29 construction projects, excluding the Central Subway Project. But in fact, the “Limited Scope Performance Audit” evaluated the Subway’s financial risks—although it did not study transit effectiveness because of the contract’s limited scope.

Auditors may be constrained in their criticism—especially when the scope of work is narrow and their client is a likely future customer. But reading between the lines, the Audit forewarns of potential future fiscal troubles. SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

·“The potential for variation in the final cost of the project is large” (Page 172): The Audit expands on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) concerns about construction and financial risks. In the context of the Audit’s study of 29 MTA construction projects and their delays/ cost escalations, past performance is an indicator of future risks.

·“The Central Subway Project is the highest risk project that the SFMTA has undertaken” (Page 184): The Audit expands on the FTA’s concerns.

·“There is a 30% likelihood of the total project cost in year of expenditure dollars being equal to or less than $1,578 million” (Page 185). The audit couches potential cost overruns in terms of financial probability theory. Although construction contingency dollars and schedules have been increased, the history of large infrastructure projects, in the Bay Area and throughout the United States, shows astronomical cost overruns and unpredictability—within the same financial/ management models. Moreover, in latest project budgets, contingency dollars appear to have decreased.

·“A study of the funds required for maintaining the state-of-good-repair expenditures revealed that SFMTA’s total assets on the FTA’s Condition Code were above the 2.5 out of 5 minimum required by the FTA” (Page 197). With the current $1.9 billion in deferred maintenance and $1.6 billion in budget deficits over the next 20 years, MTA should have already devoted higher expenditures to maintain assets in a state of repair. Instead, the Central Subway will only lead to more service cuts, life-safety threats and draconian revenue hikes—unless the project is halted.

·“However, full funding is not guaranteed and the availability of funds when needed may still be an issue” (Page 198). Officials and the citizenry are increasingly scrutinizing the Central Subway’s data falsifications and misrepresentations—while the FTA reviews the final application and the State of California faces increasing budget deficits and bond indebtedness.

·“The Audit Team is not aware of consequences for the [MTA] Board or the Board Members if performance is unsatisfactory, nor are there any criteria that define what constitutes unsatisfactory performance” (Page 210). By the Central Subway’s estimated completion date in 2019, most elected officials will not be in office and many MTA staff will be retired. History indicates that it’s too easy to spend other people’s money. The political benefits and quid pro quo of large infrastructure projects outweigh actual transportation benefits. Unless the MTA Board, staff, consultants, Supervisors and Mayor bear some personal liability, taxpayers will be singularly liable for future cost overruns and crippling deficits.

·“Now, at the half-way point in the project, the cost estimates at completion are approximately double that at initiation” (Page 213). Again, past performance is an indicator of future performance.

·“[SFMTA] will comply with Prop K policies to delay the expenditure of Prop K funds to the extent possible without putting the project at risk” (Page 271). However, the Subway’s budgets show $72 million of Prop K funds will be expended in the next two years. The recent MTA contract for tunnel boring machines usurped $57 million of Prop K sales tax funds—in lieu of restoring service cuts or improving citywide Muni.

The pink areas are the purported food deserts. The blob on the right is mostly mostly-shut-down Hunters Point, where I think I’d get shot if I snuck in to look for a gro sto anyway. And the lower pink blob contains Candlestick Point, which is loaded with parking lots and a dismal state park for parking your RV and a big old stadium, so there you go.

“The delegates were in support of both Supervisor John Avalos and State Senator Leland Yee, both progressives with strong labor credentials and records, both having been in SEIU at one time, and both friends. The delegates reasoned that with so many candidates in the race, neither could win without the others second votes, so they made a dual endorsement of them, asking members and supporters to vote their choice of first or second between them.”

SAN FRANCISCO – Senator Leland Yee has landed the first choice endorsement of the largest organization of city workers – Service Employees International Union (SEIU 1021) – in his campaign for San Francisco Mayor. The move by the 54,000 member union is a complete rejection of the city’s top official, interim Mayor Ed Lee.

The endorsement comes after Yee has landed virtually every major labor endorsement in the race, including the California Nurses Association, California School Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, Laborers International Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Communication Workers of America, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, among others.

Yee has also been endorsed by the major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and San Francisco Tomorrow.

“I am proud to be the labor candidate in this race and honored to receive the endorsement from SEIU 1021 and our city’s workforce, who run our city and provide us essential services,” said Yee. “SEIU 1021 represents some of our lowest paid and hardest working employees, including healthcare workers, nurses, and janitors. Together, we have fought to ensure greater transparency and accountability at City Hall and within state government. I look forward to working with SEIU as we move San Francisco forward.”

“Clearly, Leland Yee is the best choice to stand up for working families,” said Jim Stearns, Yee’s campaign manager. “Unlike some candidates, Leland doesn’t believe public employees are the enemy and he’ll fight for good-paying jobs and benefits for those who provide essential services to San Francisco residents.”

SEIU 1021 also endorsed John Avalos as a first or second choice and Bevan Dufty as a third choice.

SEIU 1021 was founded in 2007 when 10 local unions came together in northern California to form one larger, more powerful union. SEIU 1021 represents public service workers in cities, counties, courts, schools, private non-profits, special districts, public health care, and nursing.

______

Yee immigrated to San Francisco at the age of 3. His father, a veteran, served in the US Army and the Merchant Marine, and his mother was a local seamstress. Yee graduated from the University of California – Berkeley, then earned a Ph.D. in Child Psychology, and later served in various mental health and school settings. He and his wife, Maxine, have raised four children who all attended San Francisco public schools. Yee has served in the State Legislature, Board of Supervisors and Board of Education.”

“San Francisco Mayor Candidates Ask to Be Voters’ Second Pick in New Ballot: http://t.co/8eD33pU“

Here’s the new approach, from your state Senator, Leland Yee:

“I will not just simply ask individuals, ‘Can I be your first choice?’ because they may have favorites,” Yee, 62, a Democrat and California state senator, said in an interview after the July 27 campaign stop. “This then gives me an opportunity to ask, ‘Well, what about second choice and third choice?’ The approach is a departure from conventional elections, where coming in first is what counts.”

As stated by Chief Suhr during Monday’s press conference, information pertaining to the investigation of the officer involved shooting that occurred on Saturday, July 16, 2011 would be released as it becomes available.

Results from the analysis of evidence collected from the hands of Kenneth Harding revealed that GSR (gunshot residue) was present on Harding’s right hand. The presence of gunshot residue on Harding’s right hand supports statements from witnesses that Harding held the gun in his right hand as he fired at the police officers.

The presence of GSR on an individual’s hands indicates that either: the individual fired a gun, the individual was in close proximity to a gun as it was discharged or that the individual touched a gun or other object with GSR on its surface and particles were transferred to his/her hands.